I've been quite critical of libertarianism, but rather than drawing from my interpretation of libertarian texts, I 'd like to hear from people whom are able to receive counter-points

i'm not pushing FOR any particular ideology in this thread, just offering an alternative perspective and possible critique of libertarianism.

a perfect thread for those who are sure they believe the core principles are most important

Easy. I'm glad you asked. I'm assuming you mean by the question, what does it mean to me?

It means no busy-body nanny state- appointed dickhead breathing down my neck at every turn.
It means I can do whatever I want, provided it doesn't mess anyone else up.
It means not having a camera constantly shoved in my face.
It means not being put in a position where I'm legally unable to defend myself.
It means not having to prove my identity to anyone asking for it without cause.
It means reasonable laws being made that don't infringe on my liberty, and it means repeal of any laws that do.

I could go on all fucking day.

BadCat

09-15-2010, 06:57 PM

You wouldn't understand a thing about it, WeeWee.

You can't even take a dump without government help.

Jfor

09-15-2010, 07:20 PM

I've been quite critical of libertarianism, but rather than drawing from my interpretation of libertarian texts, I 'd like to hear from people whom are able to receive counter-points

i'm not pushing FOR any particular ideology in this thread, just offering an alternative perspective and possible critique of libertarianism.

a perfect thread for those who are sure they believe the core principles are most important

Why don't you respond to the other posts you have questions waiting in before starting new threads?

NJCardFan

09-15-2010, 09:54 PM

I'll put it simply, people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses life, liberty, or property through force or fraud. I can't break it down any more than that.

m00

09-15-2010, 09:57 PM

It's like if you combine the civil liberties stance that Democrats don't actually practice with the small-government stance that Republicans don't actually practice.

Odysseus

09-15-2010, 10:47 PM

The basic premise of Libertarian philosophy is that all rights begin with the right to live. In order to sustain life, you therefore must be able to create the means to survive, to use them and dispose of them. Thus, the right to live creates the corollary right to create and own property. Any infringement of this right is therefore an infringement of the right to live. The next corollary right is the right to self defense, to include defense of yourself and those for whom you are responsible, such as family, and the defense of property, because property is the means by which we sustain life. All other rights are derived from these basic rights.

Now, there are pro-life Libertarians (Ron Paul, for example) and pro-choice Libertarians. There are religious Libertarians and non-religious Libertarians. In fact, there are Libertarians on both sides of most philosophical issues, but the core issues remain the right to live, to create and own, and to defend yourself and what is yours.

Sonnabend

09-16-2010, 04:29 AM

<
It mean no busy-body nanny state- appointed dickhead breathing down my neck at every turn.It means I can do whatever I want, provided it doesn't mess anyone else up.
It means not having a camera constantly shoved in my face.
It means not being put in a position where I'm legally unable to defend myself.
It means not having to prove my identity to anyone asking for it without cause.
It means reasonable laws being made that don't infringe on my liberty, and it means repeal of any laws that do. <== what he said.

Sonnabend

09-16-2010, 04:33 AM

The right to read whatever I goddamned well please
The right to play whatever games I damned well like
To be treated as a responsible adult with brains instead of a five year old needing to be led and nannied all day long..if I wanna buy fireworks whilst wearing a Colt. 45 in a quickdraw holster, that should be my right.

No banned books

No banned games

No banned music

No censorship (within reasonable limits)

KhrushchevsShoe

09-16-2010, 08:58 AM

The right to read whatever I goddamned well please
The right to play whatever games I damned well like
To be treated as a responsible adult with brains instead of a five year old needing to be led and nannied all day long..if I wanna buy fireworks whilst wearing a Colt. 45 in a quickdraw holster, that should be my right.

No banned books

No banned games

No banned music

No censorship (within reasonable limits)

Aka, no political writings I disagree with in the libraries. Only freedom books about liberty. My liberty, just the way I see it.

Molon Labe

09-16-2010, 10:18 AM

I've been quite critical of libertarianism, but rather than drawing from my interpretation of libertarian texts, I 'd like to hear from people whom are able to receive counter-points

i'm not pushing FOR any particular ideology in this thread, just offering an alternative perspective and possible critique of libertarianism.

a perfect thread for those who are sure they believe the core principles are most important

It's pretty simple. The non aggression principle and that all liberty stems from property rights. Libertarianism is great at exposing the lefts falicy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Rockntractor

09-16-2010, 10:22 AM

Aka, no political writings I disagree with in the libraries. Only freedom books about liberty. My liberty, just the way I see it.

Says the shoe, as low as you can go, in the matrix.

Wei Wu Wei

09-16-2010, 12:43 PM

The basic premise of Libertarian philosophy is that all rights begin with the right to live. In order to sustain life, you therefore must be able to create the means to survive, to use them and dispose of them. Thus, the right to live creates the corollary right to create and own property. Any infringement of this right is therefore an infringement of the right to live. The next corollary right is the right to self defense, to include defense of yourself and those for whom you are responsible, such as family, and the defense of property, because property is the means by which we sustain life. All other rights are derived from these basic rights.

Now, there are pro-life Libertarians (Ron Paul, for example) and pro-choice Libertarians. There are religious Libertarians and non-religious Libertarians. In fact, there are Libertarians on both sides of most philosophical issues, but the core issues remain the right to live, to create and own, and to defend yourself and what is yours.

Can you explain how property rights asre a corollary of the right to life?

FlaGator

09-16-2010, 12:50 PM

The right to read whatever I goddamned well please
The right to play whatever games I damned well like
To be treated as a responsible adult with brains instead of a five year old needing to be led and nannied all day long..if I wanna buy fireworks whilst wearing a Colt. 45 in a quickdraw holster, that should be my right.

No banned books

No banned games

No banned music

No censorship (within reasonable limits)

Aren't you the same guy who wants people banned for posting points of view you don't like?

Rebel Yell

09-16-2010, 12:54 PM

The best way to sum it up for me is,

It's not my responsibility to see to it that your child eats.

Molon Labe

09-16-2010, 02:17 PM

Can you explain how property rights asre a corollary of the right to life?

You didn't watch the video did you?

Self Ownership and the right to the fruits of your labor is pretty much a no brainer.

Gingersnap

09-16-2010, 02:30 PM

It's like if you combine the civil liberties stance that Democrats don't actually practice with the small-government stance that Republicans don't actually practice.

LMAO! Yeah, that's a pretty good thumbnail sketch of the situation and I say that as a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party. :p

Molon Labe

09-16-2010, 03:12 PM

there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person's right to his own body, his personal liberty,, is a property right in his own person as well as a "human right." But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of "public policy" or the "public good - Murray Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty)

Property rights equal human rights.

Odysseus

09-16-2010, 03:19 PM

Can you explain how property rights asre a corollary of the right to life?

I thought that I did. The right to live requires that you be able to sustain your life through your own efforts, or through the exchange of those efforts with others. Consequently, you have the right to produce goods and services, and to own what you produce. This is the basic premise of property rights, and demonstrates the connection between property rights and the right to live.

BTW, we ought to define rights, while we are at it. A right is a freedom to act or refrain from acting, which is not dependent on any action or inaction on the part of another. This means that rights are held equally, even if the results of the exercise of those rights differ tremendously.

Bailey

09-16-2010, 03:28 PM

Can you explain how property rights asre a corollary of the right to life?

How about you answer some others questions before you get to ask some more? what do you think these people are your puppets?

Odysseus

09-16-2010, 04:44 PM

How about you answer some others questions before you get to ask some more? what do you think these people are your puppets?

I'm perfectly willing to educate Wei. It's clear that this has been left up to professional academics up until now, with result that Wei has never really had libertarian or conservative philosophy explained to him except by people who are openly hostile to those ideas. As long as he's polite and not looking to sharpshoot, I'll go on the assumption that he really wants to hear what it is that his professors were afraid to tell him.

Arroyo_Doble

09-16-2010, 04:55 PM

Think Somalia without the beaches.

Odysseus

09-16-2010, 05:02 PM

Think Somalia without the beaches.

You confuse anarchy with liberty. Liberty requires government, but it's limited in scope and defined by clear rules. Anarchy is what happens when teenage jihadis get their daily allowance of khat and go shooting up the local marketplace in the name of Allah.

Arroyo_Doble

09-16-2010, 05:03 PM

You confuse anarchy with liberty. Liberty requires government, but it's limited in scope and defined by clear rules. Anarchy is what happens when teenage jihadis get their daily allowance of khat and go shooting up the local marketplace in the name of Allah.

Government isn't the answer; government is the problem.

Or so I've heard.

Odysseus

09-16-2010, 05:28 PM

Government isn't the answer; government is the problem.

Or so I've heard.

You heard what you wanted to hear. To a liberal, anarchy and liberty are interchangeable, because he never goes back to the first question, which is, what is the purpose of government? To the left, it is a combination of God, Santa Claus and Superman, capable of regulating every activity that they despise (economic activity, political dissent) while incapable of regulating those things that they enjoy (sex, drugs and anything that insults or undermines the values of their neighbors).

Jefferson saw government as a necessary evil, the operative word being "necessary," and eloquently explained its function in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

But Washington said it best:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

--George Washington

Neither Washington nor Jefferson opposed government, but the certainly opposed tyrannical government, government which had the power to give people everything that they wanted, at the cost of being powerful enough to take everything that they have, i.e., the kind of government that liberals love, right up until they end up under its guns.

Molon Labe

09-17-2010, 09:53 AM

I've been quite critical of libertarianism, but rather than drawing from my interpretation of libertarian texts, I 'd like to hear from people whom are able to receive counter-points

i'm not pushing FOR any particular ideology in this thread, just offering an alternative perspective and possible critique of libertarianism.

a perfect thread for those who are sure they believe the core principles are most important

Guess by the traffic and the debate or lack of on this thread, you really didn't want to discuss the merits of libertarianism.